David McKenzie

“A Canadian company wants to ship 250,000 barrels of oil a day from Prince Rupert by rail. The government's ban on west coast oil tankers stops this. I want the Prime Minister to end the tanker ban so this project can go ahead.”

“Mr. Speaker, we all want Canada to grow and diversify its export markets. Today, I have good news. Strathcona Resources, a Canadian oil and gas producer, wants to export 250,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Prince Rupert. Strathcona will ship by rail existing in place today. It just needs the Liberal government to get out of the way and remove the west coast tanker ban. My private member’s bill, Bill C-264, will do exactly that. Will the Prime Minister get out of the way and repeal the tanker ban so Strathcona can help Canada become an energy superpower?”

“Alberta oil and gas is vital to our economy, but the government still bans oil tankers on the west coast. That ban does not protect the environment, because tankers still sail through those waters. I want the Prime Minister to support my bill to end the tanker ban.”

“Madam Speaker, Alberta’s oil and gas industry is a critical component of our national economy. Despite all the press releases and announcements, the Liberal government still maintains the west coast tanker ban, Bill C-48. We know the tanker ban is not about protecting the environment, because it does not prevent the sailing of tankers through the waters supposedly protected by the ban. Will the Prime Minister support Bill C-264, which is my private member’s bill to repeal the west coast tanker ban, and get out of the way so our oil and gas—”

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Everyone in Canada should have a home, but this government is bad at building them. This is the fourth time they have tried and failed. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes, but the budget officer says his plan will only build about 5,000 a year.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused. However, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada. We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program. That is 5,000 per year for five years. This is a far cry from the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government should not control the economy or fund projects that businesses can pay for themselves. Businesses will build our economy and create wealth if the government gets out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the question, or, really, the statement with a wee little question tucked on the end of it, really belies a fundamental philosophical difference between that side of the aisle and this side, that the government should be directing our economy and that no project should go forward without government approval, political approval and government investment. I do not believe that projects that can be financed and undertaken by the private sector require government money. The private sector will build economic projects in our country. It will build prosperity in our country. What it needs, what we need and what Canada needs is for the government to get out of the way.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 30 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill because it does not fix our slow project approval system. Canada is losing business investment to other countries. This bill says reviews will take one year, but that clock starts late and the government can pause it anytime. We need to scrap the Impact Assessment Act, cut red tape, and make project approvals fast and predictable.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill. It is an unfortunate fact that Canada’s economy is stagnating. There has been 0% growth reported for July 2026, with manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade pulling back in our country. Unemployment is above 6%, with youth unemployment more than double that. Projections for Canada’s national economic performance are the worst in the OECD. We know that Canada needs investment. We know inherently, and through data, statistics and analysis, that our economy requires investment as the foundation for growing gross domestic product, GDP. Unfortunately, in the last decade of the Liberal government, for every dollar of inward foreign direct investment, two dollars has exited. That is not the basis on which we grow our country. The reality is it is a significant contributor to Canada’s productivity crisis. In such dire circumstances, Canada remains a land of great promise. It is a country of strong people and communities. It is a country that possesses great resilience, which has never been more important than now. What we need most is a government that does not seek to determine what is best, does not seek to pick winners and losers in matters of business and industry, but rather facilitates the abilities and capacities of our great nation. There is much more that the government can do to unleash Canada’s potential. All of this starts with recognizing that the first job of government is to facilitate, and to do that it must stay out of the way to the greatest extent possible. Industry and business have been clear to the government that doing business in Canada has become too difficult and too hard to undertake. In particular, the first step in major economic projects is permits and approvals, which are too uncertain to justify the work required to obtain them. It may be a fact some would like to ignore, but investment capital is mobile, and it will go where the opportunity is the best. Over the last 11 years, that has not been Canada. The first effort of the Liberal government to change directions from its prior 10 years of governance has been the Major Projects Office created under Bill C-5. Projects are not, however, getting approved. To date, there have been zero projects approved by the Major Projects Office, despite more than a year since the creation of this new bureaucracy. Everyone does remember the words, “speeds not seen in generations.” Those words were spoken by the Prime Minister, and they remain hollow today. The path forward is a clear and unambiguous framework for project permitting and approvals that is transparent to all Canadians and allows businesses to plan and to build. Let me say here that I am not suggesting that our country cut corners. We need not sacrifice health and safety or environmental standards and practices in order to grow and develop our economy. As all members of the House know well, Canadian industry leads the world in many areas, including environmental practices, and we must continue to do so. What we need are reasonable processes that are not in and of themselves the reason projects do not go forward. I think of the northern gateway pipeline project, a project that was very important to my home province of Alberta and indeed to our country as a whole. It was an $8-billion pipeline project that died 10 years ago due to a lack of support from the government. The proponent of that pipeline, Enbridge, spent in excess of $500 million on that project and lost that money. While the press conferences and announcements of today on this subject from the government have been much improved, the anti-business Liberal legacy is large and still overshadows our country. We need to take politics out of the project approval process when our industry and its expert regulators are doing what they know how to do and what they are expert in. Political approvals are uncertain and a barrier to economic development. We need projects to benefit from a clear, transparent and predictable approval process, not just those projects the government likes. There needs to be a simple harmonization of existing regulations. The one-year time frame or target that has been put in place is not a complete answer to the uncertainty that is holding back our businesses. With the ability of the government to extend that statutory time frame, we end up in the same place, which is political process, political approval and political favouritism. This is not a basis on which we can go forward. We need more than a process that is a workaround designed to avoid the impacts of bad legislation. We need to remove the bad legislation. We need to fix the foundation on which our economy is built, and that means repealing Bill C-69. We all remember the Impact Assessment Act, known in my part of Canada as the “no more pipelines” act. There is a need as well for a massive overhaul of the regulations that are stifling investment all across the approval framework. These small steps forward, as in this legislation, do not get us to the point we need to get to. A problem with this legislation is that the year-long time frame only begins once a comprehensive application has been completed. It remains uncertain at what point that approval or that step in the process will be secured. Industry and business have been clear with the government that red tape, the regulatory burden of undertaking business in Canada, is a major barrier to doing business in our country. No reductions in the regulations, pre-approvals and studies required will improve the situation. There is no guarantee these changes are going to have success with business. The pause on the timeline that the government could put in place is also a recurring problem, as there is no limit on this aspect of the approval process. Business needs to be assured that projects will move forward. We need certainty around timelines so that business has the ability to invest. The creation of zones of national interest is very similar to identifying projects as being in the national interest. Again, it is an uncertainty and a political process, and it is not going to be helpful in moving things forward. Fundamentally, we need greater transportation infrastructure to support trade. Over the last year, I have served on the international trade committee and we have heard from businesses across all economic sectors that the need for improved transportation infrastructure is critical in Canada. It is going to be one of those things that we will not move forward without. While there are some indications that changes may be made, the bill does not go far enough in that respect. We have much more that we need to do with respect to this process. An example of transportation missteps is the effort of the government to sell off interests in our airports. That alone, a simple transfer of ownership, like foreign direct investment that comes into Canada to purchase existing assets, does nothing in and of itself to increase business capital available for growth, expansion and development. That is yet another thought that makes me think more of a portfolio manager and less of a Prime Minister, in terms of the disposition of our leadership and the Liberal government. Going forward, Canada needs an improved foundation for doing business. Conservatives would make those foundational changes and bring in legislation that makes an approval and permitting process clear and certain. I emphasize again that we need cut no corners. We simply need a clear process.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “makes me think more of a portfolio manager and less of a Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“I support pipelines because Canada already runs over 100,000 kilometres of them safely. The government should not spend public money to build them. Private companies will build them if the government gets out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my friend for the vote of confidence that I might have the several billion dollars required to advance a pipeline project, but I am afraid that is not within my capacities. Were circumstances and all things equal, I would absolutely be prepared to be a proponent for a pipeline project. I believe in pipelines. Our country has well in excess of 100,000 kilometres of pipelines operating safely beneath our soil, right now, this minute. The reason I think Canadians generally are not aware of that is that these pipelines operate safely, without incident, on an ongoing, daily basis. They have for decades, in many cases. We have had the luxury of forgetting about them. The question of public money is an important one. I do not believe there should be any public money in a pipeline. In fact, I do not believe there is any necessity for that. As long as the regulation is appropriate and the government is out of the way, the private sector will take care of this.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Indigenous communities supported earlier pipeline projects, including one they led themselves. The Liberal government canceled those projects because it opposes oil. Private companies should be allowed to consult with Indigenous groups to build projects again.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the next member to speak to the bill will be able to give some insight into the viewpoints of indigenous communities on this. I would note that historically, a significant amount of indigenous community support was assembled and put into place through discussion, consultation and negotiation for northern gateway. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Eagle Spirit energy project itself was indigenous-led and -created. Both of those projects were terminated by a Liberal government with an anti-oil, anti-energy agenda. Work has been done. It has been thwarted to date. I would welcome the opportunity, once the way is clear, for private industry to undertake those obligations with respect to consultation.”

“I want the House to pass my bill and end the ban on oil tankers on the northern coast of British Columbia. This ban stops us from building pipelines and selling our oil to other countries. Modern tankers are safe, and lifting the ban will create jobs and help Canada sell energy around the world.”

“moved that Bill C-264, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill. “The...MOU will build a pipeline”. Canada’s Prime Minister made that statement in the House just four months ago. Of course, the Prime Minister was referring to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Province of Alberta and the federal government just six months ago. Since that time, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements promising Canadians additional oil export capacity by pipeline for the single most valuable natural resource exported by Canada. For example, the Prime Minister said less than two weeks ago, “we will advance a potential pipeline to transport at least one million barrels of low-emission Alberta oil a day to new markets.” That statement is consistent with what the Prime Minister said a year ago: “If you want a simple answer on ‘Will I support...a pipeline?’ Yes. That simple answer. I’ve given that multiple times.” Over and above the statements of the Prime Minister, the Province of Alberta and the federal government, just 10 days ago, signed an implementation agreement respecting the November MOU. The implementation agreement says that Alberta will submit a comprehensive proposal for an oil pipeline to Asian markets to the Major Projects Office by July 1, just over five weeks from now, and, second, that “Canada will pursue [its designation] as a project of national interest for approval under the Building Canada Act by October 1, 2026”. We might just be getting somewhere. Members may be wondering if the bill up for debate right now is indeed Bill C-264, an act to repeal the west coast tanker ban. After all, I have mentioned nothing about ships or tankers, just pipelines. The fact is that a precondition of the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline is the ability to load the oil transported by that pipeline onto a tanker for delivery to international markets. While Canada presently loads hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil onto ships through the Westridge terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline at Burnaby, B.C., Bill C-48, the west coast tanker ban, prevents shipment from the northern B.C. coast. Greg Ebel, the CEO of Enbridge, Canada’s biggest crude oil shipper, said, “No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.” Further, Mr. Ebel stated, “The tanker ban is a great example of how things will have to change to allow our country to maximize its economic potential. Let markets and real demand guide routes and capacities while government focuses on enabling the conditions for success.” Truer words are seldom spoken. Let us put these pieces together. The Prime Minister wants a pipeline built. Industry will build a pipeline and fill it with oil if that oil can be loaded onto tankers on Canada’s west coast for export. Therefore, our next logical step is to repeal Bill C-48, the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to allow for the safe and responsible ocean transport of crude oil that has been safely and responsibly produced here in Canada. There is good news, and it is only Tuesday. The Conservatives are here to help, and Bill C-264 is just what the doctor ordered: a repeal of the tanker ban so that the way would be clear for the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline and an increase in the safe and responsible shipment of Canadian oil to our international trading partners and allies across Asia. The demand for responsibly produced Canadian energy, including crude oil, has already been made clear. Nations that are not energy self-sufficient are interested in Canada as an energy supplier. We are a stable, democratic nation with environmental standards that are second to none, and we are a supplier of choice. Countries including India, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the very countries with which the Prime Minister is trying to grow our trading relationships, want Canadian energy. While we have a great deal to gain by eliminating the west coast tanker ban, Canada also has something to lose if we do not take this opportunity to remove obstacles and develop the capacity to supply our international trading partners. Tim McMillan, former minister of energy and resources for the Province of Saskatchewan, was CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2019 when he stated, “Bill C-48 has the potential to permanently block Canada from exporting its responsibly produced natural resources to growing international markets, preventing us from helping to displace global greenhouse gas emissions and lift other nations out of energy poverty.” Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, was markedly more blunt when she said the tanker ban “was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it.” Ms. Hall Findlay identified a different approach from that taken by the current Liberal government with Bill C-48, when she said, “There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.” Why do we have Bill C-48? When the Liberals put the tanker ban in place, they argued that it was necessary for protecting the environment. That argument is completely inconsistent with the reality of commercial shipping on Canada’s west coast. Nearly a century of tanker traffic has sailed the west coast without a serious oil spill of Canadian crude. Tankers are statistically safer than cars, airplanes, trains and even oil pipelines, when we look at the number of shipments safely transported. Right now the port of Vancouver loads roughly 400 oil tankers each year, and there have been no spills. Our safety standards are world-class, and our safety record proves it. The Liberals also argued that the tanker ban was required in order to protect the Hecate Strait in particular, because it is difficult to navigate and supposedly remarkably dangerous. This argument does not seem to have a basis in scientific fact. There are no Transport Canada risk analyses that describe the strait as particularly challenging. B.C. passenger ferries travel through the strait on a regular basis. The Prince Rupert Port Authority says the Hecate Strait is “a deep, ice free inlet with easy access and can be entered at all times and in all seasons.” When it comes to rough weather, I have been told by a former port authority employee that the high-tech solution is to wait. Satellite weather analysis and modern technology mean that ship captains can see rough conditions coming or see when they exist, and they simply wait out those conditions. The fact is that loaded oil tankers have passed through the Hecate Strait in the last half-dozen years during the existence of the tanker ban. There have not been many passages, but it does happen. I would suggest that it is not well known that these voyages have occurred from time to time, because the tankers have transited the Hecate Strait safely and without incident. It is important to note that oil tankers do not need to pass through the Hecate Strait to transport crude oil from the northern B.C. port of Prince Rupert. Rather, ships headed to international ports would sail through the Dixon Entrance and into the open ocean. The Dixon Entrance is a body of water that is 13 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. By way of illustration, 289 tankers would fit side by side across that distance of 13 kilometres. I want to speak to the safety of our maritime shipping industry. Today’s tanker fleet is double-hulled, it sails using GPS navigation technology, it is extensively monitored, and when close to shore it requires escort tugs and marine pilots specifically trained on the waters that the ship is in. Tankers and commercial shipping are very safe, and we should be supporting and celebrating the capacity that exists on our west coast, rather than doubting the ability of our seafaring professionals to get this job done and done right. While overall safety is very high, marine accidents can and do happen. The most common causes, however, are not dangerous waters or freak weather occurrences but ship collisions and groundings. These accidents, logically, tend to happen when ships are near ports, and particularly when the ports are congested. The port of Vancouver currently suffers from congestion issues and aging infrastructure, and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has already increased tanker traffic there. Additional port capacity at Prince Rupert and Kitimat can reduce the pressure on the port of Vancouver and increase shipping safety. Again, former Liberal MP Ms. Hall Findlay was succinct on the subject of shipping risk. She said, “There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast”. Those who feel our west coast tanker waters are too dangerous for crude oil tankers must be wondering how different our east coast is from our west coast. On Canada’s east coast, roughly 240 tanker trips every year move crude oil on the St. Lawrence River between storage in Montreal and refining facilities outside of Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, about 90 oil tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility every year to load crude oil. Denise Mullen, director of environment, sustainability and indigenous relations at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this about the west coast tanker ban: “Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast.... This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.” It is 100% clear that the Canadian energy sector is the financial backbone of our country. That is something that I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians engaged in the responsible production of Canadian oil and gas are rightfully proud of. In the face of this fact, it is not just self-defeating to maintain the west coast tanker ban but simply nonsensical. Denise Mullen, with the Business Council of British Columbia, as I mentioned, said it well. She said the tanker ban “results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.” The Liberal tanker ban was always about shutting down Canadian oil production, not safety or environmental protection. For more than half a decade now, the Liberal west coast tanker ban has been a roadblock to true nation building. It has not been just a piece of legislation. It has been a project killer. It is part of the Liberal anti-energy agenda that over the last decade effectively ended the northern gateway pipeline and the indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit energy project. We must pause to consider the gravity of these facts. If those projects had been allowed to move forward, Canada would already be providing energy security to countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India, not just talking about it. Our energy industry is world-leading in advanced technologies, environmental safety and impact; creates thousands of high-paying jobs; and fosters real economic reconciliation with indigenous communities. Our energy industry deserves our support, real and concrete support through action, not just words and high-minded ideas. Our Conservative caucus supported the government legislation that created the Major Projects Office. It was, and is, not the best solution to getting our country building again, but it was a small step in the right direction. Right now, we need to take another step in the right direction: repeal the tanker ban and further clear the way to making Canada a true energy superpower. We must focus on the facts, focus on the science, trust the experts in marine shipping who will work with local communities, work with indigenous communities, and work with fishers and other marine transporters and shippers to ensure that shipping of all descriptions will be safe and secure. We need to reject sea stories and hysteria and have confidence that we can ship crude oil and do it safely. I give the last word to Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, as I mentioned, who said, “I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country.... Repealing [Bill] C-48 would be a sign of that happening.” I have, I am sure, just a few seconds left. I received an interesting email from a resident in North Vancouver. Her name is Andrea, and she writes, “I’ve been very frustrated with this tanker ban. No such thing set up for the east, so why B.C.? This has always seemed too extreme. We have tankers coming and going in the Salish Sea, Georgia Strait, Vancouver Harbour and especially the very narrow and relatively shallow Lions Gate Bridge entrance with no issues.” I will end there.”